Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Report

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors

  • 499 Accesses

Abstract

A company is traditionally identified by third parties, thanks to the trademark overlaying its products or services, its other intellectual property rights, along with its corporate name, its trade name or its signage, and sometimes its domain name.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property of 20 March 1883, revised (available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html), Article 10(b):

    1) The countries of the Union are bound to assure to nationals of such countries effective protection against unfair competition. 2) Any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition. 3) The following in particular shall be prohibited:

    1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor; 2. false allegations in the course of trade of such a nature as to discredit the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor; 3. indications or allegations the use of which in the course of trade is likely to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose, or the quantity, of the goods.

  2. 2.

    OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

  3. 3.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 2.

  4. 4.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, p. 2.

  5. 5.

    See Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 1.

  6. 6.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, p. 1.

  7. 7.

    See Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 1.

  8. 8.

    See Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 3.

  9. 9.

    See Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 5; Jute, Sweden, Part II, Chap. 24, p. 5; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 4.

  10. 10.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 4. The Belgian report is not published in the present volume.

  11. 11.

    Article 6(b) of the Paris Convention reads:

    “1) The countries of the Union undertake, ex officio if their legislation so permits, or at the request of an interested party, to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods. These provisions shall also apply when the essential part of the mark constitutes a reproduction of any such well-known mark or an imitation liable to create confusion therewith.

    A period of at least five years from the date of registration shall be allowed for requesting the cancellation of such a mark. The countries of the Union may provide for a period within which the prohibition of use must be requested.

    No time limit shall be fixed for requesting the cancellation or the prohibition of the use of marks registered or used in bad faith.”

  12. 12.

    Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC reads: “Any member may also provide that the proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade any sign which is identical with, or comparable to, the trademark in relation to goods or services which are not comparable to those for which the trademark is registered, where the latter has a reputation in the Member State and where use of that sign without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trademark.”

  13. 13.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, p. 3; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 6.

  14. 14.

    See Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, pp. 3–4.

  15. 15.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, pp. 3–8; Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, pp 10; La Rocca, Italy, Part II, Chap. 22, pp. 2–3.

  16. 16.

    See Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 10.

  17. 17.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, p. 6.

  18. 18.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 6–7; Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 12.

  19. 19.

    Jute, Sweden, Part II, Chap. 24, pp. 5–6.

  20. 20.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, p. 7.

  21. 21.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, p. 9.

  22. 22.

    See Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 7.

  23. 23.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 8.

  24. 24.

    See Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 11.

  25. 25.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, pp. 9; La Rocca, Italy, Part II, Chap. 22, p. 4.

  26. 26.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 9.

  27. 27.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, pp. 7; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p.

  28. 28.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, pp. 2–3.

  29. 29.

    See Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 13.

  30. 30.

    ECJ, case C-323/09, Interflora Inc. and Interflora British Unit v Marks & Spencer plc et Flowers Direct Online, Rec. 2011 I-8625; ECJ, case C-487/07, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd and Starion International Ltd., Rec. 2009 I-5185.

  31. 31.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, p. 10.

  32. 32.

    See Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 13.

  33. 33.

    See Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, p. 4–5; La Rocca, Italy, Part 2, Chap. 22, p. 5.

  34. 34.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, p. 4.

  35. 35.

    Belgian report, pp. 9–10, not published in the present volume.

  36. 36.

    See Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 11.

  37. 37.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, p. 7–8.

  38. 38.

    See Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, pp. 7.

  39. 39.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, p. 11, which refers readers to pp. 3 to 8; Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, pp. 5–6; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 8.

  40. 40.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, pp. 8–10.

  41. 41.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 13.

  42. 42.

    Jute, Sweden, Part II, Chap. 24, p. 9.

  43. 43.

    See Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 14.

  44. 44.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, p. 6.

  45. 45.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, pp. 13–14; Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, pp. 19–21; Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, p. 6–7; Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 12; Jute, Sweden, Part II, Chap. 24, p. 11–12; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 11; Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, pp. 18–19.

  46. 46.

    See Lukácsi et al., Hungary, Part II, Chap. 21, p. 12; La Rocca, Italy, Part II, Chap. 22, p. 6.

  47. 47.

    See La Rocca, Italy, Part II, Chap. 22, p. 6–7; Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, pp. 7.

  48. 48.

    See Mosing & Handig, Austria, Part II, Chap. 17, pp. 13–14; Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, p. 7; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 7.

  49. 49.

    See Longstaff, United Kingdom, Part II, Chap. 26, p. 17.

  50. 50.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, pp. 6–7.

  51. 51.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 26; Henning-Bodewig, Germany, Part II, Chap. 20, p. 12.

  52. 52.

    See Hajn, Czech Republic, Part II, Chap. 18, p. 7; La Rocca, Italy, Part II, Chap. 22, p. 7.

  53. 53.

    See Jute, Sweden, Part II, Chap. 24, p. 12–13.

  54. 54.

    See Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, p. 7.

  55. 55.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, pp. 25–26.

  56. 56.

    See Arcelin et al., France, Part II, Chap. 19, p. 27; Decker & Decker, Luxembourg, Part II, Chap. 23, p. 8; Ghassemi, Switzerland, Part II, Chap. 25, p. 13–14.

  57. 57.

    TRIPS agreement of 15 April 1994.

  58. 58.

    Point 26 of Directive 2004/48/EC: With a view to compensating for the prejudice suffered as a result of an infringement committed by an infringer who engaged in an activity in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds for knowing, that it would give rise to such an infringement.

  59. 59.

    Article 13.1 of Directive 2004/48/EC: Member States shall ensure that the competent judicial authorities, on application of the injured party, order the infringer who knowingly, or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in an infringing activity, to pay the rightholder damages appropriate to the actual prejudice suffered by him/her as a result of the infringement.

  60. 60.

    Pierre Kobel, ILCL International Report (2007): “Ambush Marketing too smart to be good? Should certain ambush practices be declared illegal and if so, which ones and under what conditions?”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. J.P. Karsenty & Associés, Paris, France

    Martine Karsenty-Ricard

Authors
  1. Martine Karsenty-Ricard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martine Karsenty-Ricard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  2. Addleshaw Goddard, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  3. Etude Hirsch Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karsenty-Ricard, M. (2014). International Report. In: Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P. (eds) Antitrust for Small and Middle Size Undertakings and Image Protection from Non-Competitors. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54000-4_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation